The natural lifestyle in all walks of life.

Damn, I thought we had our first libcom nudist!

Anyway, primal, there's a deep, deep critique of (indeed, an antipathy towards) primitivism on these forums. You can do a quick search for primitivism to see why. That said, folks will be willing to discuss with you, but you should probably be prepared for a less-than-receptive audience.

Might be good to check out the intro guides to get a bit better idea where most of the posters are coming from: http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

Primal, although the comments by Chilly Sauce make a good summation of the main contributors to these forums, the antipathy towards 'primitivism' are not universal. My personal grievances are with capital and not with any particular school of thought.

Primal, while JMB above makes great points, I also agree with you that primitivism is a very thought-provoking set of ideas.

David Graeber comments on anarcho-primitivism in direct action I think. Whatever we think of DG, he says something interesting. He suggests that we may not want to take anarcho-primitivism totally seriously: that it is a set of ideas that, at least in some versions (he points to Zerzan), are designed to challenge typical ways of thinking. In other words, it's designed to radically call into question how society and even anarchists relate to And see technology, and therefore isn't necessarily a doctrine or dogma to be embraced for itself. (It has negative or critical value rather than positive or dogmatic value.)

I bring this up because (a) it's an engagement with anarcho-primitivism you might consider.

I also bring it up (b) because I'm wondering what you and others think of this interpretation. Must we take Zerzan and others as serious? Or could we instead say that at least some of them are not necessarily being serious but rather just raising a critical set of ideas to challenge prevailing common sense about technology?

Jschul05

I also bring it up (b) because I'm wondering what you and others think of this interpretation. Must we take Zerzan and others as serious? Or could we instead say that at least some of them are not necessarily being serious but rather just raising a critical set of ideas to challenge prevailing common sense about technology?

Said earnestly - no, they really are just that batshit.

Can someone direct me to some of the arguments about, and against, anarcho-primitivism on Libcom?

Jschul05

Can someone direct me to some of the arguments about, and against, anarcho-primitivism on Libcom?

http://libcom.org/search/node/primitivism

Try reading the first article that comes up in that search.

This is a good one, too:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

Anyway, in the early days of libcom, the site was there as a sort of pole of class struggle anarchism. If you read the early forums, they're in large part full of very funny, often bad-tempered, arguments against a creeping lifestylism and primitivism into the UK anarchist scene.

My personal grievances are with capital

The thing is, primmos' grievances aren't with capital. They're with civilization or industrialization or technology or, for Zerzan, spoken f*cking language.

At best, primitivists have a grievance with capital in as much as they see capitalism as an outgrowth of those other things. In any case, primitivism has not a damn thing to do with anarchism if we understand anarchism as the anti-state wing of the socialist movement.

Jschul05:

...it's [primitivism] designed to radically call into question how society and even anarchists relate to And see technology, and therefore isn't necessarily a doctrine or dogma to be embraced for itself. (It has negative or critical value rather than positive or dogmatic value.)

I think you make a very good point and make it much more lucidly than I ever hope to.

Jschul05

Okay, what are your difficulties with anarchoprimitivism?

Mostly covered in the readings posted by Agent and Chilli. Also, this discussion has panned out ad-infinitum on these forums already. Reviewing those threads - and then posting your questions to them - rather than this one - is a better choice.

I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

So, back to this thread. Could any of the anti-anarcho-primitivists please tell me whether the concept of primitive communism is one that they accept? For the sake of good manners (don't laugh!) I should tell you that it is a reality that I accept.

James MacBryde

I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

A run in with the red and black penguin while trying to browse a user account is not an acceptable reason to give up reviewing the extensive discussions on primitivism that already exist on these forums.

Type 'primitivism' into the search function box; press the 'search' button. This will bring up both library and forum resources. Library resources have a comment section that essentially acts as a forum. Collectively, there are literally thousands of comments about this topic spread out over many forum OPs and library pieces. Many of the library pieces are in fact direct responses to your query about why communists think a-p is bullshit. Additionally, many of the library comments and forum posts discuss precisely this topic.

Finally, if your last post was a troll attempt, I must tip my hat. I absolutely love 'Ken M' style trolling and I think you really nailed it - if in fact it was your intention.

I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

One, so that usually happens if someone's account has been closed down.

Two, what in the world does it have to do with this discussion and why would it inhibit you from reading the article?!?

Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765
EDITED to say this^^^ is wrong.

Chilli Sauce

Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

Edited out for derailing.

radicalgraffiti

Chilli Sauce

Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

me too.
i love the penguin.

radicalgraffiti

Chilli Sauce

Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

Ah, I do have basic mod privileges.

Sorry James, my mistake!

Primal

Chilli Sauce

This is a good one, too:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

I have read some of it and am not too happy about it.

In my view this article is rubbish. Did you read it yourself, before posting it and calling it "a good article" in such a serious-sounding way? Did you honestly post it in good faith?

I would not have any faith in this author's reasoning ability or opinion on anything.

On web sites like primitivism.com, primitivists tell us how the Internet should not exist. In printed magazines like Green Anarchy, they condemn printing presses and typesetting technology. And in events like the Green Anarchy Tour of 2001, they complain of the roads that enable them to travel, the electricity that powers the instruments of their tour's musical acts, and of the existence of the facilities that host their events. Primitivists enjoin their audience to live like early hominids, though they certainly don't lead by example.

The theory is that in an ideal world, none of those things would be necessary or helpful. All of those words are important. In the modern world, many of those things may be necessary and/or helpful.

The statement "The first: how can such ideas be seriously entertained by anyone?" taken at face value admits a clear lack of understanding of primitivists and shows the author does not know what he/she is talking about.

I find a lot of the language and insults really inappropriate and show a grievous lack of understanding by the author in not only of the theory but also how to construct a valid appraisal of something.

A terrible, terrible article overall, really a dreadful effort.

So you didn't like it then?

Primal

But I am not against using computers or anything like that. I would only claim that in a perfect paleolithic environment, they wouldn't offer us any benefit. And also for things like guns, humans that only had stones would be far less likely to kill each other. I think natural ways and methods tend to be better, because humans are evolved for them. Basically I think civilization was all a terrible mistake. I think lots of people here might agree on lots of the main issues, it's becoming uncomfortably obvious that ecologists have been right about the way the world is headed.

changes to the human genome have been happening since the paloelithic, so there is no basis that modern humans would be better suited to that environment. also, human genetics are variable in regards to their environment, becuase of activation due to epigenentics. while you decry sjw's and "gender neutrality", high infant mortality and natal mortality have been constants of human society till recently in certain social-economic conditions

There's a bunch of stuff here but you won't like the comments.

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism#new

This doesn't follow. The changes have been absolutely negligible.

um, that really depends on what you mean by negligible, such as the ability to consume lactose into adulthood which originated ~10000 yrs ago: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

gram negative

also, human genetics are variable in regards to their environment, becuase of activation due to epigenentics. while you decry sjw's and "gender neutrality", high infant mortality and natal mortality have been constants of human society till recently in certain social-economic conditions

Infant mortality and natal mortality of our ancient ancestors are unrecorded. Mortality among closely-related primates living in ideal conditions is the closest we can get to that data.

Much of what is imagined regarding paleolithic human populations by anarcho-primitivists, such as Zerzan's conceptions of the alienating effects of symbolic thought and language, are not recorded, either. I guess you dismiss that as well? Comparison to modern hunter-gatherers says otherwise (with all the caveats that go along with such a comparison): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248406002193

Don't take my critiques of anarcho-primitivism to assume that I am some positivist technocrat; I believe that there is much to criticize about the social effects of technological production and the medical industry; I also work on an urban, organic farm.

Primal

Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

that'll be up to the individual facing death to decide. language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory.

So, when Zerzan refers to the Trobiand islanders, or other contemporary hunter-gatherers, this represents something different than when someone critical of anarcho-primitivism refers to the anthropological research? If you want to dismiss anthropology and archaeology, that's your decision, but how could you then make any claim about the conditions of the paleolithic? Is this then a religious belief of yours?

My point is that the supposed anthropological basis for anarcho-primitivism, one of the sole bases for its truth claims, does not hold up, as I have shown with your claim that modern humans would be better suited for the paleolithic. Nowhere did I say that I support designer babies or genetic modfication, you just don't having any meaningful response to what I have presented.

Also, what I find most troubling regarding anarcho-primitivism, is the perspective that you have shown mandating that this lifestyle would be the best for all of humanity; that to me violates the principles of free association and strikes me as authoritarian. If people want to live in an anarcho-primitivist manner in a postrevolutionary society, I have no problem with that - but to decree that for everyone?

Anarcho-primitivism also sidesteps the many ecological issues which would need conscious attention in the immediate future to prevent further catastrophe and encourage flourishing, such as soil remediation and the maintenance of nuclear plants to prevent meltdowns.

Primal

petey

Primal

Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

that'll be up to the individual facing death to decide. language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory.

How do you know the unborn baby 'wants' to live in such circumstances? You're bringing up a lot of assumptions here such as that we always should assume a baby wants intervention to live. Primitively that intuitive reasoning makes a lot of sense, with modern medicine it's getting more and more tenuous. What if for example the baby would have to be hooked up to a machine for the rest of his/her life and would always feel extremely tired? Would you wait until they are 18 and then they would be able to sign a paper saying they don't want to live anymore? With modern technology such human tendencies and instincts to save someone aren't always valid.

this is unanswerably confused and freakishly arrogant.

"language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory"

No. I am claiming that death is not always the worst thing as a rule and that on an individual basis everyone would eventually agree that they would rather death than to go on. It's a clear observation of human behaviour. "colonize" is a very strange word to use there.

you just did it again.

Primal

I actually was unaware what point you were making there. The development of partial tolerance among some people for one particular allergy of modern life hardly proves that man wouldn't do better in his natural environment. The very fact that the genes of humans of old are being "weeded out" is in my view a troubling development. The reason I brought up those two matters is because I think they could be spell the end of anything even resembling humans with the ambivalence and kneejerk responses most people are treating them with. Our genes are us, they're humanity itself, for good or for bad, to change them to me is disturbing.

What is humanity's natural environment, and what evidence do you have for that claim?

Regarding your paragraphs on technological dangers, what plan does anarcho-primitivism have to deal with these issues? I see a lot of outrage on your part, but little discussion on how to deal with these dangers.

Primal

It's undisputed as being the sub-Saharan African savanna/jungle. The Out of Africa hypothesis uses DNA evidence and otherwise to show man's migration from Africa about 8,000 years ago. The other theories that aren't in favour also have man emigrating from Africa.

What explains human expansion from Africa, especially in ecosystems that vary from sub-Saharan Africa?

You seem to be missing the point that humans have evolved the ability to be successful in many different ecosystems, despite originating in Africa. What makes one more natural than the other? You do realize that other organisms have migrated from their places of origin, why must humans be subject in your eyes to the conditions of our past? Should whales return to the land?

Primal

Humans are in no way way evolved for the cold weather in even moderately cold countries. That's why we need clothes, shelter and heating on top of that. Even in supposed moderate countries such as Ireland it's almost unbelievably cold even inside nevermind outside.

Suitable amounts of food don't grow in this climate either. I'm talking about fruit and some leafs/vegetables, don't tell me you think grains are a suitable food for humans. And they don't grow all year around, there aren't different fruit appearing at at every time of the year. In many regions of sub-Saharan Africa fruit grows abundantly in all seasons, there is never any shortage of food for the remaining great apes that live there except when humans have encroached on their territory or otherwise upset the ecosystem.

You are talking some paleo nonsense. There is evidence that humans have been eating seeds and grains for as long as 100000 to 30000 years, which is easily googleable.

Also, I don't even know what to say to your first paragraph. Too bad we evovled these brains to use tools! Honestly, you keep showing the misanthropy that I often see in anarcho-primitivists. Which is too bad, because I do appreciate the challenging critiques of technology and the importance of ecology that I have found in A-P writing.

Primal

gram negative

Primal

Humans are in no way way evolved for the cold weather in even moderately cold countries. That's why we need clothes, shelter and heating on top of that. Even in supposed moderate countries such as Ireland it's almost unbelievably cold even inside nevermind outside.

Suitable amounts of food don't grow in this climate either. I'm talking about fruit and some leafs/vegetables, don't tell me you think grains are a suitable food for humans. And they don't grow all year around, there aren't different fruit appearing at at every time of the year. In many regions of sub-Saharan Africa fruit grows abundantly in all seasons, there is never any shortage of food for the remaining great apes that live there except when humans have encroached on their territory or otherwise upset the ecosystem.

You are talking some paleo nonsense. There is evidence that humans have been eating seeds and grains for as long as 100000 to 30000 years, which is easily googleable.

Jesus Christ, it has just been explained to you that in my view IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER that they've been eating them for that long. It's still the evolutionary blink of an eye, we are basically the same as our ancient ancestors and in the wrong environment. That's my claim, and frankly it's pretty obvious to me. You're still repeating that line as if I had never commented anything about it? You can have beliefs all you want, but please don't say things that we just went over.

Well it's appropriate that you see misanthropy because I am misanthropic, I think the world would be better off without humans and then other creatures such as the great apes might actually have a chance of survival then. The way we're going it's hopeless.

Look, you obviously don't know what you are talking about regarding evolutionary change; Tibetans have evolved to be better adapted to their high-altitude living conditions within 3000 years: http://m.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html

If this is some value system that you have, that's fine, but don't try to offer some nonexistent scientific basis for it.

Primal

gram negative

Primal

It's undisputed as being the sub-Saharan African savanna/jungle. The Out of Africa hypothesis uses DNA evidence and otherwise to show man's migration from Africa about 8,000 years ago. The other theories that aren't in favour also have man emigrating from Africa.

What explains human expansion from Africa, especially in ecosystems that vary from sub-Saharan Africa?

You seem to be missing the point that humans have evolved the ability to be successful in many different ecosystems, despite originating in Africa. What makes one more natural than the other? You do realize that other organisms have migrated from their places of origin, why must humans be subject in your eyes to the conditions of our past? Should whales return to the land?

Humans are in no way way evolved for the cold weather in even moderately cold countries. That's why we need clothes, shelter and heating on top of that. Even in supposed moderate countries such as Ireland it's almost unbelievably cold even inside nevermind outside.

Suitable amounts of food don't grow in this climate either. I'm talking about fruit and some leafs/vegetables, don't tell me you think grains are a suitable food for humans. And they don't grow all year around, there aren't different fruit appearing at at every time of the year. In many regions of sub-Saharan Africa fruit grows abundantly in all seasons, there is never any shortage of food for the remaining great apes that live there except when humans have encroached on their territory or otherwise upset the ecosystem.

nuts don't grow all year round, yet squirrels live on them, they harvest them, store them for the sparse times of year, and (inadvertently) plant them, ensuring an ongoing harvest.

Damned unnatural squirrels.

I would not have any faith in this author's reasoning ability or opinion on anything.

On web sites like primitivism.com, primitivists tell us how the Internet should not exist. In printed magazines like Green Anarchy, they condemn printing presses and typesetting technology. And in events like the Green Anarchy Tour of 2001, they complain of the roads that enable them to travel, the electricity that powers the instruments of their tour's musical acts, and of the existence of the facilities that host their events. Primitivists enjoin their audience to live like early hominids, though they certainly don't lead by example.

The theory is that in an ideal world, none of those things would be necessary or helpful. All of those words are important. In the modern world, many of those things may be necessary and/or helpful.

The statement "The first: how can such ideas be seriously entertained by anyone?" taken at face value admits a clear lack of understanding of primitivists and shows the author does not know what he/she is talking about.

First off, if your "ideal world" doesn't include electricity, printing presses, or roads, then yeah that shit cannot and should not be taken seriously be anyone. End of.

Second, here's the thing: it is possible for primitivists to go off and live in a cave, shit in the woods, and create a world where electricity and roads aren't necessary. So go fucking do it, don't spend time on the internet telling people how they should dream of living in a world of such luxury.

It's appropriate that you see misanthropy because I am misanthropic, I think the world would be better off without humans

And there you fucking have it. Primitivism ain't got shit to do with anarchism. Please drop the anarcho off the front of it. And then we can all dismiss you as a bunch of misanthropic oddballs instead of having to deal with this shit as if it's some sort of legitimate strain of anarchism.

Humans are in no way way evolved for the cold weather in even moderately cold countries. That's why we need clothes, shelter and heating on top of that. Even in supposed moderate countries such as Ireland it's almost unbelievably cold even inside nevermind outside.

What humans have evolved to have is a really massive brain, and putting it to good use we've worked out how to keep ourselves warm, sheltered fed and entertained even in the most inhospitable climates. It was -27C here on Monday and I was absolutely fine. You do know that we're not the only animal which has migrated over our history, as populations grew and new resources were needed. There's nothing "unnatural" about this.

Suitable amounts of food don't grow in this climate either. I'm talking about fruit and some leafs/vegetables, don't tell me you think grains are a suitable food for humans. And they don't grow all year around, there aren't different fruit appearing at at every time of the year. In many regions of sub-Saharan Africa fruit grows abundantly in all seasons, there is never any shortage of food for the remaining great apes that live there except when humans have encroached on their territory or otherwise upset the ecosystem.

Actually, people have been living in a whole variety of climates for a very long time and have managed to feed themselves very well, thank you very much. Even here, where it can be legitimately described as being one of the inner circles of hell for four months of the year. That's because we've learnt to harvest and store and preserve foods to keep people fed during the winter months.

I appreciate that it may be a personal lifestyle desire of yours to wander around naked in a warm climate, picking fruit from trees but it's probably not attractive to most people, especially the people who are already living in these nice warm places, who might not take to kindly to a bunch of naked freeloaders turning up and stealing all their fruit. Personally, I have a ridiculously low boredom threshold and I don't think I'd like it. I actually think that civilization was one of the better ideas of human history, certainly on a personal level that living in your idea of a "natural" state, I would have died in childbirth. I kind of like these fringe benefits civilization affords us.

It's probably not attractive to most people, especially the people who are already living in these nice warm places, who might not take to kindly to a bunch of naked freeloaders turning up and stealing all their fruit.

Fleur, you're winning libcom 2016.

Actually I'm quite surprised that there are any primmos left. I had heard that the last herd of wild primmos were last spotted in the Pacific North West, wandering dazed and confused from malnutrition and suffering from severe chafing caused by the pine bark coverings they had tried to fashion to protect themselves from the climate.

Man, Fleur, no pressure, but I'd love to see you rip into this for starters:

This is well-known and accepted now throughout the literature, that before the agricultural "revolution" people lived happier, healthier and more carefree lives, that it was the NEOLITHIC after the start of agriculture that brought so much disease and starvation and when people lived short lives.

And then, for desert:

However I highly doubt you'd have died in childbirth because it's only modern civilization of mostly fat women with hormones out of whack, poisons and allergens everywhere and so on that leads to difficult births in the first place.

What you have for the main, I'll leave to you.

Primal

(and no need to link me to anything, I've seen all of it).

really? thats quite impressive, does that include this?

I don't claim at all that everyone should live without electricity in the modern world, and neither does Zerzan I'm fairly certain or any primitivist suggest dropping it all. So stop trying to inform primitivists of what their views are and making them as kooky as possible in your imagination. The only claims made by primitivists, at least by me, is that in an ideal, theoretical world we wouldn't need them.

The thing is, though, that's a batshit crazy "ideal, theoretical world" with no useful value as a model or in any practical sense - and one that's got nothing to do with anarchism.

and one that's got nothing to do with anarchism.

Bullshit. With no TV, computers or any of these vulgar distractions you would have no end of time available to scratch circled A's in the mud with a stick.

Good because I really can't be bothered to all that nonsense you posted.

Edit: Just this one thing though -

Did you create the tools yourself and use them? Did you find out all the information yourself? No of course not. If you had the brain to do all those things yourself maybe you can argue that,

Actually, no. This is because I make use of shops to buy things. However, I do have the skills to do so if any really nasty shit came down, I have my own metal work workshop and have had so for the last couple of years and I am capable of making all sorts of things out of all sorts of useful materials. I can also sew really well, so making warm clothing etc isn't a problem, I grow my own vegetables when the seasons permit as well as preserving the surplus. So don't tell me I don't have the brain to do this stuff because I do. We all do, it's part of being human. Back to that really massive brain we have, we can learn things.

Primal

Apparently people here would rather suicide their thinking process using childish rhetoric and routinely throwing slurs like "batshit crazy" into arguments so I really think this forum isn't for me.

Childish? Maybe. But certainly no worse than claiming the world would be better off without humans on it.

Also, are you suggesting that the problem is that humans pass on knowledge from one generation to the next? Because that obviously the results from having a large, highly developed brain - which I'd argue is a pretty inherent and natural part of the species.

boozemonarchy:

A run in with the red and black penguin while trying to browse a user account is not an acceptable reason to give up reviewing the extensive discussions on primitivism that already exist on these forums.

I didn't give up on that basis. To be honest I'm just plain lazy. Many moons ago I read the Wildcat (UK) paper on Zerzan and 'primitivism'. To me his arguments are dead and buried as is the reaction against them.

I'd still like to know whether those that have commented on this thread consider primitive communism to be part of their mindset. Thanks

gram negative

The Out of Africa hypothesis uses DNA evidence and otherwise to show man's migration from Africa about 8,000 years ago.

Youre shitting me right, who helped them out Noah?

Mr Jolly:

You're shitting me right, who helped them out Noah?

The first funny joke I've read on these forums: thank Christ!

Passing knowledge from one generation to the next can be seen in other primates on a very limited scale, unlike in humans where everything can be written down and you have access to thousands of years worth of work.

And? What's the point you're trying to make?

‘Passing knowledge from one generation to the next can be seen in other primates on a very limited scale, unlike in humans where everything can be written down and you have access to thousands of years worth of work.’

If these abilities to read, write and learn from the past are not an ‘inherent extension of human brains’, where did they come from? Are you a creationist?

Primal

in fact humans used to have a larger brain than they do now and arguably used to be smarter.

you got a reference for that? also, larger brain volume does not necessarily mean smarter, which is seen with other primates

Mr. Jolly

gram negative

The Out of Africa hypothesis uses DNA evidence and otherwise to show man's migration from Africa about 8,000 years ago.

Youre shitting me right, who helped them out Noah?

that wasn't me, but I did miss that howler 8000 years ago

As was being discussed, that all of this is in no way an inherent natural extension of human brains.

And you've proved nothing about that whatsoever. There is no "natural" state of being human beings. What you're arguing is just the primitivist equivalent to the fall of Man upon being excluded from the Garden of Eden.

And you argue this natural state was in the garden of Eden. If humans have moved away from it in the way you argue, then this natural state doesn't exist anymore, is something we can't go back to. In essence, the natural state of humans istoday purely a myth.

But cute that you try to be condescending. Pro tip: it doesn't make either you or your argument sound any more convincing

either everything humans do is natural or nothing is, you cant just arbitrarily declare one action natural and another not

Oh no no no no. You can fuck off talking about Garden of Eden, this is all what you're coming up with yourself, where your own mind is at, and I have no interest in talking with you again. I never said anything in any way like that.

That is precisely what you are arguing. You are not using those words, but this longing for a no-longer-existing natural state of human existence is precisely the same as longing for a return to before the fall, back to the community of the Prophet or any other such desire for an impossible return to a history long gone. Even Marxism has a version of this argument called primitive communism, and often working class revolution is often posited as a return to this original and more natural state of humanity. That these sorts of narratives keeps coming up in their secularized forms in the West is not a surprise; we may think we have killed God but Judeo-Christian theology is still very much with us and we keep dipping into that well time and over again. So you may actually be saying something without being aware of saying it (which is pretty common in these days what with today's discourse on immigrants, refugees and Muslims being eerily similar to 1930s rhetoric even though those who espose such racist nonsense would of course say that what they say is nothing like 1930s and how dare you even suggest that).

But funny that your reaction is that strong. Surely, it would be easy for you to disprove that you're not calling for a return to the past. Just argue your position. This "never will speak to you again" line is typical of people whose arguments have no legs to stand on.

Primal #59
‘That post is just too stupid for me to dignify with a response.’

It is not the first time I’ve been thought stupid, though from you I can consider it a complement.
You wrote that you feel alienated and left out of the political process. The way you ‘post and discuss and learn’, is to pour your contempt for humanity onto a thread. Maybe if you liked yourself a bit more, other people would not appear so obnoxious.

Primal

Auld-bod

‘Passing knowledge from one generation to the next can be seen in other primates on a very limited scale, unlike in humans where everything can be written down and you have access to thousands of years worth of work.’

If these abilities to read, write and learn from the past are not an ‘inherent extension of human brains’, where did they come from? Are you a creationist?

Ah come on. That post is just too stupid for me to dignify with a response.

Maybe Snarky, but the point stands: If humans have been codifying and passing on information from one generation to the next since we first appeared as a species, isn't that pretty strong evidence that's it's a natural human trait?

Isn't it Chomsky who's credited with demonstrating that language is an inherent human ability?

Khawaga:

Even Marxism has a version of this argument called primitive communism

From Wikipedia:

Engels offered the first detailed theorization of primitive communism in 1884, with publication of The Origin of the Family. Marx and Engels used the term more broadly than Marxists did later, and applied it not only to hunter-gatherers but also to some subsistence agriculture communities. There is also no agreement among later scholars, including Marxists, on the historical extent, or longevity, of primitive communism.

That is a weak argument,

So humans have gotten better at transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next, mostly through invention - another thing humans have been doing naturally since the dawn of the species...

Presumably cave paintings which date back to 40,000 years ago are not evidence of humans "naturally" tending to record events and pass on information. Or that aboriginal Australians, who did not adopt agriculture, having highly complex art which told stories and passed on information doesn't count as something people do "naturally" either.

But the oral tradition is very different from the written record.

Oral communication is still transmission of information/knowledge, and is still also a form of storage (think the rhyme of epic poetry).

The thing is, I don't really give a hoot whether civilization or urbanization or whatever is "natural" or not - you're the one who brought that shit up.

I'm just pointing out that the cut off between "natural" and "unnatural" is (a) blurry and very much a matter of interpretation and (b) of no use to me as an anarchist.

um, again, you have burden of proof to say what is the natural as opposed to the original habitat of humanity. ecological systems and the organisms that make up them are subject to change over time, including drastic, discontinuous change. you do also realize that other organisms have drastically changed the Earth from its previous 'natural' states, right? I'm sure the anaerobic bacteria of around 2.4 billion years ago would consider their massive reduction in biomass due to the evolution of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria to be 'unnatural', if they had the cognitive apparatus to make such a distinction. I guess an ideal world would return before the Great Oxygen Holocaust, and the introduction of 'unnatural' oxygen to the atmosphere where it has operated as a pollutant and climate modifier. As was said above, you have a fundamentally dualistic and religious conception of nature as if of the fall of man in christianity. My point in critiquing you is that your beliefs offer no use in understanding or dealing with the very real problems that we are confronted with, whether that is ecological destruction or the medical industrial system, other than moralizing.

Khawaga

Oral communication is still transmission of information/knowledge, and is still also a form of storage (think the rhyme of epic poetry).

But unlike the written record, it changes, mutates stuff is added taken away depending social dynamics as it's passed down through the generations. Think about how your anecdotes change emphasising bits losing others depending on the audience, oral tradition much more fluid and open ended through telling and retelling. No the social memory is quite different from the written record.

Yes, it does change, necessarily so because the capacity for storage is limited (hence the need for constant retelling). But that doesn't mean that there isn't any storage or transmission of knowledge which was my point. But that oral and written cultures are very different, and that knowledge takes on a more fixed form (or is less "living") in written cultures is of no doubt. I don't think we're actually disagreeing Mr. Jolly.

Mr. Jolly #80

The oral and written tradition are different though there are similarities. Stories change both oral and written. You don’t have to go back very far to show this similarity, for example no one today can read Jane Austin, and interpret the stories as her contemporaries would have done. All human communication, I think, is rooted in a time and place and will change its meaning/s over time (as it passes into history). Art historians have extreme difficulty reading the symbolism/esoteric meanings contained within medieval art, etc.

EDIT
The other day I heard it stated that the origin in giving ‘someone the finger’ (raising your hand with the middle finger extended), originated some years ago when Muslims signalled ‘there is but one God’.

Auld-bod

Mr. Jolly #80

The oral and written tradition are different though there are similarities. Stories change both oral and written. You don’t have to go back very far to show this similarity, for example no one today can read Jane Austin, and interpret the stories as her contemporaries would have done. All human communication, I think, is rooted in a time and place and will change its meaning/s over time (as it passes into history). Art historians have extreme difficulty reading the symbolism/esoteric meanings contained within medieval art, etc.

EDIT
The other day I heard it stated that the origin in giving ‘someone the finger’ (raising your hand with the middle finger extended), originated some years ago when Muslims signalled ‘there is but one God’.

Sure there are grey areas, to do with interpretation of historical texts, but that in itself is the problem of the written record also a problem of history, which is a process of writing. The oral tradition in traditional societies, doesnt have history like this, myth and cosmology stories are really just ways of explaining and understanding the present.

Mr. Jolly #83

‘The oral tradition in traditional societies, doesnt have history like this, myth and cosmology stories are really just ways of explaining and understanding the present.’

Sorry, I don’t understand, surely this is the same today? A text or story is only relevant or valuable if it helps to explain and understand the present?

Just want to say that this is an early runner for the 'Best Thread Title' 2016 spot.